Your thoughts on this Ben Franklin quote....is it still relevant?
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I've heard this stated many, many times. Most notably regarding the PATRIOT Act or other pieces of legislation like it.
Is it really fair to use that quote in the context of today? Shouldn't we be taking more comprehensive precautions due to the complex nature of the world we live in?
In other words, could Ben Franklin have really fathomed that world would be so interconnected and that it could be so easy to cause death and destruction on an unfathomable scale?
I'm not saying this to defend the actions of the government, but whenever a piece of legislation like the PATRIOT Act arises is it really safe to just spout this quote and then pretend that there is no danger in the world (and/or we are immune to it) and that somehow enhanced security measures will mean the downfall of our society?
Isn't it perfectly logical to assume that in the world we live in today, without these enhanced security measures and CIA interrogations, waterboarding, etc that we may not have a constitution, society, or country left to defend?
Your thoughts, please.
Mr. Smartypants2011-06-14T13:35:37Z
Favorite Answer
The whole purpose of fighting terrorism and despotism and all those horrible things is to preserve our freedoms and liberties. Those are the reasons we founded the US in the first place! To say we have to give up our freedoms and liberties in order to preserve the US is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We are giving up what we are trying to save, in order to save it.
The War on Terror is not really about terror at all, just as the War on Drugs was not really about drugs. They were both justifications to erode the Bill of Rights, to give government, and those who control government, more power over our lives.
The War on Drugs allowed police to hassle people at random on the street, to search and question without a warrant, to summarily confiscate homes, cars, money and property without a warrant or any 'due process', to tap phones without a warrant, etc., and to use illegally gathered evidence in court. It engendered a lot of laws taking power away from defendants and judges and giving it to prosecutors and police. It had NO effect on the illegal use of drugs in the US, in fact drug use has only increased.
The War on Terror takes this even farther. It allows someone to be arrested and jailed indefinitely with no evidence against him, no charges, no access to a lawyer, no Habeas Corpus. It basically gives the presidential administration unlimited power to jail anyone at any time for any reason or no reason. It allows the govt. to investigate any aspect of our lives. Tell me this is never going to be used for political purposes! 8^P
In the US you have more chance of being struck by lightning than killed by terrorists. You have more chance of a building falling on you in an earthquake. Yet politicians tell us we have to give up the very essence of what makes the US a great country in order to fight this really very minor threat. Plus, our govt. is really doing all it can to INCREASE terrorism around the world.
Specifically as it applies in the context in which you frame it, yes, totally relevant, appropriate and proportionate. "... more comprehensive precautions due to the complex nature of the world we live in..."? You don't think anybody said that to Ben Franklin? Comprehensive precautions proportionate to a particular technology? Okay, fine but how do the complexities of emerging technologies translate to repeal of habeas corpus? What is the technological precedent for that? I think the Patriot Act is a textbook perfect example of exactly what Franklin was talking about, and also, more textbook material: "Isn't it perfectly logical to assume... without these enhanced security measures... we may not have a constitution... left to defend?" If we repeal the Constitution, do we have a Constitution 'left to defend'?
Well.. for starters you're going to have to define what an essential liberty is. We trade liberty for security all the time, and usually don't even blink an eye at it.
Speed limits. Stop Signs. Red Lights. All are a trade of liberty for security.
We just need to look at if the trade is worth it. Being forced to drive 20 mph through a school zone is worth it, because I know that my kids or my nieces and nephews are a lot less likely to get hit by a car.
The Patriot act really needs to be viewed in the same light.. but with a lot larger stakes.
The government could easily abuse the Patriot Act, as well as its powerful position, to do exactly as Ben Franklin warns. I do not believe that it does, or that it will. It is somewhat relevant though.
One part where the quote breaks down is the fact that methods that terrorists would or could use to evade standard legal wiretaps exist. I find no evidence of people being harmed by the Patriot Act for doing nothing wrong, and plenty of terrorists being caught.